Leopold Toetsch writes:
> While trying to generate a small example that shows the memory
> corruption problem reported by Steve, I came along these issues:
>
> a) [1] is .Sub, [2] is turned off
> The subroutine prints main's $m - very likely wrong.
Well, Subs don't do anything with pads, so I'd say this is correct.
> Q: Should the Sub get a NULL scratch pad, or a new empty scratch pad stack?
Or just keep the existing one like current subs do. A top-level sub
should be a closure under an empty pad stack.
The following correspond to Perl code (approximately):
> b) [1] is .Closure, [2] is turned off
> The closure prints "main" - probably ok
eval 'my $m = "main\n"; ' . 'print $m';
> c) [1] is .Closure, [2] is "newpad 0"
> Lexical '$m' not found
sub foo { print $m }
{ my $m = "main\n"; foo() }
> d) [1] is .Closure, [2] is "newpad 1"
> prints "main"
my $m = "main\n"; sub { print $m }->();
> Q: What is correct?
It looks to me as though they all are.
Luke
> .sub _main
> new_pad 0
> new $P0, .PerlString
> set $P0, "main\n"
> store_lex -1, "$m", $P0
> .sym pmc foo
> newsub foo, .Sub, _foo # [1]
> .pcc_begin prototyped
> .pcc_call foo
> .pcc_end
> pop_pad
> end
> .end
> .sub _foo prototyped
> # new_pad 1 # [2]
> find_lex $P0, "$m"
> print $P0
> # pop_pad
> .pcc_begin_return
> .pcc_end_return
> .end
>
> leo
>
